The Dini-gration of Darwinism

AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

[Remedy]

Texas Tech University biology professor Michael Dini recently came under fire for refusing to write letters of recommendation for students unable to "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the following question: "How do you think the human species originated?"

For asking this question, Professor Dini was accused of engaging in overt religious discrimination. As a result, a legal complaint was filed against Dini by the Liberty Legal Institute. Supporters of the complaint feared that consequences of the widespread adoption of Dini’s requirement would include a virtual ban of Christians from the practice of medicine and other related fields.

In an effort to defend his criteria for recommendation, Dini claimed that medicine was first rooted in the practice of magic. Dini said that religion then became the basis of medicine until it was replaced by science. After positing biology as the science most important to the study of medicine, he also posited evolution as the "central, unifying principle of biology" which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, which applies to all species.

In addition to claiming that someone who rejects the most important theory in biology cannot properly practice medicine, Dini suggested that physicians who ignore or neglect Darwinism are prone to making bad clinical decisions. He cautioned that a physician who ignores data concerning the scientific origins of the species cannot expect to remain a physician for long. He then rhetorically asked the following question: "If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?"

In an apparent preemptive strike against those who would expose the weaknesses of macro-evolution, Dini claimed that "one can validly refer to the ‘fact’ of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known." Finally, he cautioned that a good scientist "would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs."

The legal aspect of this controversy ended this week with Dini finally deciding to change his recommendation requirements. But that does not mean it is time for Christians to declare victory and move on. In fact, Christians should be demanding that Dini’s question be asked more often in the court of public opinion. If it is, the scientific community will eventually be indicted for its persistent failure to address this very question in scientific terms.

Christians reading this article are already familiar with the creation stories found in the initial chapters of Genesis and the Gospel of John. But the story proffered by evolutionists to explain the origin of the species receives too little attention and scrutiny. In his two most recent books on evolution, Phillip Johnson gives an account of evolutionists’ story of the origin of the human species which is similar to the one below:

In the beginning there was the unholy trinity of the particles, the unthinking and unfeeling laws of physics, and chance. Together they accidentally made the amino acids which later began to live and to breathe. Then the living, breathing entities began to imagine. And they imagined God. But then they discovered science and then science produced Darwin. Later Darwin discovered evolution and the scientists discarded God.

Darwinists, who proclaim themselves to be scientists, are certainly entitled to hold this view of the origin of the species. But that doesn’t mean that their view is, therefore, scientific. They must be held to scientific standards requiring proof as long as they insist on asking students to recite these verses as a rite of passage into their "scientific" discipline.

It, therefore, follows that the appropriate way to handle professors like Michael Dini is not to sue them but, instead, to demand that they provide specific proof of their assertion that the origin of all species can be traced to primordial soup. In other words, we should pose Dr. Dini’s question to all evolutionists. And we should do so in an open public forum whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Recently, I asked Dr. Dini for that proof. He didn’t respond.

Dini’s silence as well as the silence of other evolutionists speaks volumes about the current status of the discipline of biology. It is worth asking ourselves whether the study of biology has been hampered by the widespread and uncritical acceptance of Darwinian principles. To some observers, its study has largely become a hollow exercise whereby atheists teach other atheists to blindly follow Darwin without asking any difficult questions.

At least that seems to be the way things have evolved.

[whattajoke]

True, abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution. It is, however, usually taught side-by-side with it."

You should have stopped after the first sentence. Abiogenesis is certainly not taught alongside evolutionary biology. The only place you'll typically find that is in creationist propaganda touting their viewpoint.

[f.Christian]

wj ...

Believe me, creation garbage is akin to this... pure nonsense that doesn't warrant a response. (So why am I doing it? ; )

fC ...

you come on a conservative site and publish this liberal garbage --- slime ?

[Dataman]

adherents to the theory get as whipped up as any adherent to a religion.

It won't be long now... with lather aplenty, Whattajoke has already started the decline.

[f.Christian]

You hijack (( reroute )) and cut the conservative power line and then you don't want to pay the bill you are running up ?

[Dataman]

Abiogenesis is certainly not taught alongside evolutionary biology.

If you mean to say this incredible and elaborate theory was developed without any regard for its basis whatsoever, we're all snickering.

[f.Christian]

wj ...

As has been stated here a million times, scientific debate is not meant for public spectacle. Truth be told, it's a tedious, boring exercise detailing minute facts, written out over tens of thousands of pages in hundreds of texts, journals, online resources, museum placards, etc.


fC ...

classic ... elitisim !


To: f.Christian

fC...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change.

LC...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule (( constitutional // law ))** for the assurance technocracy and expert rule (( dictatorship // tyranny ))**.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

** .. .. .. my additions !

Boshevik monopoly (( experts )) ... social // mind engineers ---

Brainwashing (( God // Truth )) -- Indoctrination (( lies // evolution // atheism )) !

Main Entry: tech·no·crat
Pronunciation: 'tek-n&-"krat
Function: noun
Date: 1932
1 : an adherent of technocracy
2 : a technical expert; especially : one exercising managerial authority

Main Entry: tech·noc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: tek-'nä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Date: circa 1919
: government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts

[whattajoke]

FC: "you come on a conservative site and publish this liberal garbage"

It is my strong contention that science, and all its tenets, is an important part of conservatism. We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are) and this is all part of that. The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left.

[FactQuest]

Abiogenesis is certainly not taught alongside evolutionary biology.

Puh-lease. I went round and round on this before in another forum, and found several high school biology text books that had abiogenesis in the Evolution unit.

Most biology classes, include the ones I took in HS and college, teach them one behind the other, as a cohesive whole. Some give a little lip service to the speculative nature of abiogenesis, but generally its presented as well supported by the old amino acid experiment and whatnot.

[f.Christian]

wj ...


We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are) and this is all part of that.


fC ...

I see (( puke )) !

[BMCDA]

Nor can you authoritatively say that live evolved... for the same reasons. Dini seems to have granted himself that authority.

We can never exclude the possibility that a god created all life in the recent past but made it so that it looks as if it evolved over several million years. And of course he also planted all those fossils in the ground to lead us astray...

[stanz]

I don't speak for Dini and for all I know, his words may have been taken out of context.
I'm just relating to my own experiences in the classroom and in the field.

[Dataman]

And of course he also planted all those fossils in the ground to lead us astray...

Shame! You know better than that. It's not the evidence that we disagree with but the interpretation of the evidence (and sometimes the evolutionist manufacturing of the evidence).

[ThinkPlease]

Even if it were true, the childish "but they do it too!" response does not justify Dini's bigotry.

So is it bigotry when a professor fails a student who clearly hasn't done the work to pass a class? It's up to the student to retain knowledge and understand it. If the student chooses not to, that is his problem, not Dini's.

[stanz]

What makes some people angry, in my opinion, is not the rejection of evolutionary tenets per se, but the insistence on non-scientific arguments in any area which are not founded on reason.

[Dataman]

So is it bigotry when a professor fails a student who clearly hasn't done the work to pass a class?

You need to read up on the Dini case. What you say is not related to Dini and his bigotry.

[ThinkPlease]

It's not the evidence that we disagree with but the interpretation of the evidence (and sometimes the evolutionist manufacturing of the evidence).

Or the complete ignoring of the evidence when it doesn't suit you.

[whattajoke]

y'know, I was gonna take offense at you stating that my views are "liberal," but then again, I can't find one freeper who would want your garbled musings held up as a paragon of conservatism!

[Taliesan]

I'm one of the people he would not endorse. And more power to him.

[Dataman]

What makes some people angry, in my opinion, is not the rejection of evolutionary tenets per se, but the insistence on non-scientific arguments in any area which are not founded on reason.

You mean like something coming from nothing?
Like life coming from non-life?
Like a complete and massive genetic code found in a bacteria?
You mean like whales trotting around on land like horses?

[f.Christian]

Psychotic people so invested in their theories can't comprehend reality for an instant w/o crashing !